6
Mercules, on 13 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:
Hate to tell you this, no it doesn't. Since the enemy HAS to come kill you and you have to go kill them it leads to even less strategic play. Basically you clump up and move from good position to good position until the enemy is engaged. At that point you -might- consider sending a flanker out. If your whole team moves at 45 kph it doesn't matter because the main thing with TDM is stick together and focus fire.
Now if you are an 8 man you could build a team with fast spotters a couple brawlers that could stall the enemy and long range support but let's face it.. ."Stick together and Focus Fire" brawlers works so well on the majority of the maps that even when there IS a base you can cap it works.
Right now you have ALL the tactical maneuvering of TDM and in addition the need to defend and/or capture a location. That is actually more skill reliant than TDM.
To explain it another way. TDM is Conquest without bases. So all the TDM strategy, tactics, and skill exists in Conquest with additional strategy, tactics, and skill. It's not that TDM doesn't take any skill, it's that it takes the same skill minus the base capturing/defending skill... AKA LESS SKILL.
Please explain how TDM would change this. It wouldn't change it at all and when both sides ignore the bases you fight in the "same three locations".
TDM has never felt like Mechwarrior to me in any of the previous games. At LAN parties and online we always played with objectives. What happened there is you often had very odd builds for exactly those objectives. The "Destroy/Defend the Mansion" mission, for example. On offense there was typically a fast mech with NARC and an Artillery Beacon. The other attacking mechs ran a bunch of LRMs and long range weapons and would ignore mechs once they could get close enough to the Mansion to shoot it. ONE Artillery Beacon would take out the mansion so the defending team needed mechs with good sensors that were fast enough to find and intercept the opposing light(s). They also needed to have enough fire power and speed to engage heavier mechs that might get into long range and fire upon the mansion.
Destructible objectives are almost worse, trust me. Bases you would have to fire upon will be the target of Airstrikes and Artillery since they can't clear out, or sniped long before the lights show up. This mechanic is far from ideal but it is better than alternatives that are not carefully thought out and put into the game. It has to be carefully balanced and they still don't have the mech/weapon/tech balances in the game correctly right not so having the same mechanic work for both sides really is best... at the moment.
Now if you are an 8 man you could build a team with fast spotters a couple brawlers that could stall the enemy and long range support but let's face it.. ."Stick together and Focus Fire" brawlers works so well on the majority of the maps that even when there IS a base you can cap it works.
Right now you have ALL the tactical maneuvering of TDM and in addition the need to defend and/or capture a location. That is actually more skill reliant than TDM.
To explain it another way. TDM is Conquest without bases. So all the TDM strategy, tactics, and skill exists in Conquest with additional strategy, tactics, and skill. It's not that TDM doesn't take any skill, it's that it takes the same skill minus the base capturing/defending skill... AKA LESS SKILL.
Please explain how TDM would change this. It wouldn't change it at all and when both sides ignore the bases you fight in the "same three locations".
TDM has never felt like Mechwarrior to me in any of the previous games. At LAN parties and online we always played with objectives. What happened there is you often had very odd builds for exactly those objectives. The "Destroy/Defend the Mansion" mission, for example. On offense there was typically a fast mech with NARC and an Artillery Beacon. The other attacking mechs ran a bunch of LRMs and long range weapons and would ignore mechs once they could get close enough to the Mansion to shoot it. ONE Artillery Beacon would take out the mansion so the defending team needed mechs with good sensors that were fast enough to find and intercept the opposing light(s). They also needed to have enough fire power and speed to engage heavier mechs that might get into long range and fire upon the mansion.
Destructible objectives are almost worse, trust me. Bases you would have to fire upon will be the target of Airstrikes and Artillery since they can't clear out, or sniped long before the lights show up. This mechanic is far from ideal but it is better than alternatives that are not carefully thought out and put into the game. It has to be carefully balanced and they still don't have the mech/weapon/tech balances in the game correctly right not so having the same mechanic work for both sides really is best... at the moment.
Hate to tell you this, yes it does. It opens completely new strategic options. I disagree with you on almost every single point you made, yet i don't feel like explaining anything to you. It would be a futile effort, as you clearly don't want to play this, and i couldn't care less, so there's no use wasting my time.
I am just annoyed by people questioning other people's intelligence, simply because they would rather like to play without a cap option. These people are very well capable of defendig their base, they just don't want to. Please accept that.
See, it's about people wanting the option to play differently. But if i recall correctly, you were the person wanting to deny others that option, in order to force them into the gamemode you like? In this thread?
http://mwomercs.com/...it/page__st__40
I think it was you.
Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 13 March 2013 - 05:19 PM.
They're one mech down, take advantage of it!
